Starvation Elimination Ac

A BILL To ensure that the United States of America at all times maintains a basic level of aid to people in
danger of starvation and to promote the security, prosperity, and general welfare of the United
States by feeding starving peoples of the world.

PART I

Chapter 1 - Policy; Assistance Mandate and Authorization

Sec. 101 General Policy. - (a) More than half a century ago, in the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, Congress asserted “that the individual liberties, economic prosperity, and security
of the people of the United States are best sustained and enhanced in a community of nations
which respect individual civil and economic rights and freedoms and which work together to use
wisely the world’s limited resources”. In the same act, Congress went on to “reaffirm the
traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people”, but it is clear that legislation, from
beginning to end, is focused on pursuing those humanitarian ideals insofar as that pursuit will
return definite dividends to the United States.
Given the dramatic drop in child mortality, maternal mortality, abject poverty, and disease
and the increase in life expectancy, education, and opportunity across the entire world and in
particular in the most vulnerable countries and the role played by foreign aid from the United
States in accomplishing this progress, the Congress finds the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
has been a success. This bill seeks to enhance that success by focusing efforts and resources
on the elimination of starvation as a common cause of death for humans everywhere,
establishing a base level of investment from the United States into that effort and by reordering
the prioritization of the end goals of humanitarian aid given by the United States in pursuit of
that goal.
Therefore, the Congress declares that the United States shall allocate no less than
0.25% of its GDP to assistance to starving people wherever possible. This level of investment
shall be maintained until assistance to all people in danger of starvation can be provided for a
sum less than 0.25% of GDP.
While this aid will certainly have positive impacts on the United States by improving
security throughout the world, building better developed and more productive trading partners,
and increasing positive perceptions and influence of the United States, these benefits should
not be the primary concern of nor even material consideration in where assistance is given .
The execution of this legislation should follow one principle goal:
(1) the elimination of starvation as a common cause of death in humans.
The Congress declares that pursuit of this goal be fully reflected in the foreign policy of
the United States and that resources be effectively and efficiently utilized.
(b) Under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State, the agency primarily responsible
for administering this part should have the responsibility for coordinating all United States food
assistance-related activities sanctioned under this bill.
Sec. 102 Immediate and Long Term Assistance Policy - (a) The Congress finds that the
root causes for starvation can be highly varied across places and times. Immediate assistance
may be more appropriate in some cases than others but ultimately reaching the goal of this
legislation will require developing sustainable food production for vulnerable peoples.
The Congress recognizes that there may not be sufficient funding to both develop
sustainable food production and prevent the immediate starvation of all people. It would be short
sighted to commit in stone the exact moral calculation involved in trying to do the most good
with available funding. Therefore it shall be the responsibility of the administering agency, with
guidance from the Secretary of State, to determine to what degree funds are allocated to
immediate starvation relief versus development of long term sustainable food production.
Broadly this decision should follow these basic principles:
(1) The lives of all people, regardless of race, gender, color, religious
belief, age, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, etc., have value and shall
be considered to have value.
(2) Cost efficiency of providing assistance to a given populace shall be
considered in terms of total cost or expected total cost of providing assistance
divided by the number of lives saved or expected to be saved by that assistance.
(A) General preference should be given to more cost efficient
assistance or assistance that is reasonably expected to be more
cost efficient.
(B) Any assistance effort funded under this bill whose cost per life
saved exceeds 200% of the median cost per life saved of all
assistance efforts under this bill shall be reviewed annually.
 (3) Investment into programs that don’t provide immediate relief, including
those that will increase long term food production of a vulnerable area, at the cost
of providing immediate relief shall only be allowed if it can be reasonably
expected that the longer term program will save more lives or be more cost
efficient.
(4) assistance may not be allocated nor revoked with the intent of
pursuing any other policy goal nor any other objective other than the elimination
of starvation as a common cause of death in humans.
(A) resource allocation under this bill may not be used to intentionally
inflict hunger or starvation on a populace.
(B) intentionally inflicting hunger or starvation on a populace,
exempting exceptions outlined in Sec. 103 of this bill, shall be
considered torture punishable under 18 U.S. Code § 2340A
Sec. 103 Cooperation with Foreign, Regional, and Local Powers and Governments - (a)
While Sec. 101 of this bill makes clear that the principle goal of this legislation is to eliminate
starvation as a common cause of death in humans, the increase in goodwill toward and
cooperation with the United States from areas receiving assistance are welcome byproducts of
this effort. Under Sec. 101 of this bill, these benefits are not allowed to be material consideration
for where funds are allocated, but these benefits should be considered in the practical logistics
of distributing funds to a given area. This includes making an effort, whenever it is possible and
appropriate, to work with local, regional, and national governments and authorities in a given
area in order to both maximize the effect of resource investment in pursuit of the goal of ending
starvation and build better, mutually beneficial relationships with more open lines of
communication with as many peoples as possible.
(b)The Congress recognizes that while working with local, regional, and national
governments and authorities is preferable, there will be cases in which this is not practical,
feasible, nor, at times, even possible. In such cases, there should still be an attempt to provide
assistance to starving peoples according to the basic principles outlined in Sec. 102 of this bill.
Uncooperative powers will likely increase the cost of providing assistance as well as decrease
the number of lives saved by that assistance. The extra costs and lower effectiveness inflicted
by uncooperative powers should be counted in the cost efficiency of providing assistance. This
can be used as reasonable consideration in where funds are allocated, but the decision to deny
or revoke assistance to a given area may not be made with the intent to pursue any other policy
goal or objective other than the elimination of starvation as a common cause of death in humans
as outlined in Sec. 102 of this bill.
(c) The Congress recognizes that there may be attempts to sabotage, steal, or in other
ways disrupt the flow of assistance to certain peoples, especially in politically unstable regions.
In this regrettable circumstance, all efforts should be made to avoid starting, escalating, or in
any way intensifying armed conflict or in any way endangering personnel or peoples being
assisted, but when possible, there should still be an attempt to provide assistance to starving
peoples according to the basic principles outlined in Sec. 102 of this bill.
Creative solutions may be considered so long as implementation of a solution adheres to
the basic principles outlined in Sec. 102 of this bill. Potential cost of lost assets should be
counted in expected cost efficiency of providing assistance. Theft or misallocation of assets
should be counted in the same manner as damaged or destroyed assets unless the theft or
misallocation of assets provides material aid to a power that intends to do harm. In such cases
the size and severity of the risk of losing assets to such a power, the number of lives that could
be saved if assistance is successfully provided, and the cost efficiency of saving those lives
should all be considered in how and whether assistance is provided.
Providing adequate protection to personnel, those being assisted, and assets will likely
increase the cost of providing assistance as well as decrease the number of lives saved by that
assistance. The extra costs and lower effectiveness should be counted in the cost efficiency of
providing assistance. This can be used as reasonable consideration in deciding where funds are
allocated, but the decision to deny or revoke assistance to a given area may not be made with
the intent to pursue any other policy goal or objective other than the elimination of starvation as
a common cause of death in humans as outlined in Sec. 102 of this bill.
The agency responsible for providing assistance should work closely with intelligence
agencies, diplomats, and other officials as appropriate by region and especially in regions where
other US operations are ongoing or will soon commence in order to ensure the safety of
personnel and peoples being assisted and the effective and efficient use of resources.
Sec. 104 Definitions - As used in this bill
(a) “People”, “Peoples”, and “Group of people” refer to any socially cohesive unit
composed of two or more people.
(b) “GDP” means the Gross Domestic Product of the United States as reported by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.
 (c) “Assistance” and “assistance effort” mean the use of funds in pursuit of saving the
lives of starving peoples.
(1) The definition of these terms is intentionally vague to allow flexibility in the
types of programs and solutions used to pursue the goal of eliminating
starvation as a common cause of death in humans.
(2) While “assistance” is generally expected to be providing food to starving
people or direct expansion of a region’s capacity to produce food, other
examples may include
(A) Helping starving people move from places that are food scarce to
areas that will increase their access to food
(B) Improving infrastructure in order to improve starving peoples
access to food
(d) “Starving people” includes any group of people whose lack of access to food has
resulted in the death of one or more persons from malnutrition or starvation or whose access to
food is sufficiently jeopardized that one may reasonably expect that one or more of them will die
from malnutrition or starvation as a result. “Starving people” will also include any group of
people where malnutrition is a contributing factor in the deaths of one or more people.